empathy – Sciblogshttps://sciblogs.co.nz
SciblogsSun, 04 Mar 2018 23:05:44 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3https://sciblogs.co.nz/app/uploads/2019/04/cropped-SciBlogsFBProfile-32x32.jpgempathy – Sciblogshttps://sciblogs.co.nz
3232Opinion: Let’s celebrate the Humanities morehttps://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/03/06/opinion-lets-celebrate-humanities/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/03/06/opinion-lets-celebrate-humanities/#respondMon, 05 Mar 2018 19:30:33 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=251991Recently, there has been a great deal of hullabaloo on my Facebook timeline as people squabble over whether so-called ”hard” subjects like calculus and physics are inherently better and more difficult than the alternative, ”soft” subjects like English, drama and photography.

Filip Vachuda, Onehunga High School’s academic runner-up for 2017, began ”DuxGate” when he wrote he missed out on dux because the winner ”exempted herself from any math, science, or indeed, scholarship exams and extra subjects”.

Given that I was awarded dux twice in high school, having studied the sciences, the arts and the so-called ”non-academic” subjects of painting and physical education, I believe I’m in a qualified position to comment on this issue.

Filip wonders why his school didn’t consider his ”more demanding curriculum”, claiming that the ”classically academic” subjects he studied were more academically rigorous than printmaking, English or theology.

The notion that it’s laughably easy to achieve highly in arts-based subjects is a damaging misconception perpetuated throughout society. In my experience at least, in subjects where there are clear correct and incorrect answers – high school physics, for example – it is easier to score more highly than in subjects that value abstract and creative thinking. Calculus is chock-a-block with complicated theorems and intricate calculations.

But history, sociology and English literature require abstract thinking, creativity, writing skills and the ability to communicate in a clear and engaging manner. Moreover, these subjects are, for lack of a better word, subjective. There’s no clear-cut way to succeed. Both calculus and English are challenging, but in vastly different ways.

In school, I was a ”dramie”, a corpse-bride in our street performers troupe. Sure, dressing up in a frayed wedding dress and daubing ghostly paint on my face may have seemed practical, fun and stupidly easy to accumulate credits in. But drama also required me to submit numerous written portfolios and essays detailing every minute aspect of my various characters, my costume and my stage presence.

And perhaps NCEA year 13 painting was fun and interesting. But it also required I spend virtually every afternoon in the art studio researching my artist models, writing up long and tedious essays about Salvador Dali’s concept of time, mastering difficult painting techniques and employing a wide range of media. It was time-consuming, exhausting and difficult – despite being a so-called ”non-academic” subject.

Filip argues the end goal of education is a well-paying job. Financial gain is not and should not be the sole reason for educating oneself. The motivations for studying a particular subject are as wide and varied as the students who take them. In my humble opinion, it is more fulfilling to pursue learning for the joy of it, rather than focusing on the rewards and recognition one might obtain.

Moreover, Filip’s assertion that certain subjects automatically lead to higher-paying jobs is inherently speculative, failing to take into account how the job market may evolve in the future. New Zealand’s economic and cultural landscape will not remain static forever. In short, Filip’s essay is symptomatic of a wider societal disrespect towards the arts and subjects such as music, drama and PE.

And what are the consequences of this? Neglecting the humanities and one’s cultural education will ultimately leave Kiwi high-schoolers ill equipped to employ the self-reflection and self-criticism required of informed and critical citizens.

English literature, painting and Polynesian dance help us understand our fellow human beings, thereby fostering social justice, empathy and equality. History, sociology and gender studies teach us to weigh evidence sceptically and deal critically with complex, subjective and imperfect information.

Of course, calculus, physics and chemistry are and will remain vital and necessary to our country. But they must be balanced by subjects that value the study of humanity in all its manifestations. So can we please stop undervaluing and neglecting disciplines rooted in the arts, ideas and the celebration of cultural achievement?

Filip ends his essay by advising his sister to ”load up on her photography, PE and Polynesian dance if she wishes to continue being a top scholar”.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/03/06/opinion-lets-celebrate-humanities/feed/0How we decide who and what we care about – and whether robots stand a chancehttps://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/02/23/decide-care-whether-robots-stand-chance/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/02/23/decide-care-whether-robots-stand-chance/#respondThu, 22 Feb 2018 19:30:35 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=251595Dan Crimston, The University of Queensland

When psychologists talk about a “moral circle” they are referring to how far we extend our moral consideration towards others. That is, whether we care about the well-being of others, and act accordingly.

For most of us, the continuum of our moral circle is pretty straightforward: we include our loved ones, and we aren’t all that concerned about rocks or the villains of society. But the middle ground between the obvious ins and the obvious outs are not quite as clear-cut.

And historical trends suggest they are expanding, meaning the future of our moral circles may be vastly different from today. Could they one day include robots?

Why moral circles are important

The moral circle is an intuitive concept. We are concerned about the welfare of those inside our moral circle and feel a sense of moral obligation for their treatment. Those on the outside can be subject to indifference at best, and horrific treatment at worst – think the Holocaust, or the cruellest elements of factory farming.

Therefore, our assessment of who is in and who is out is incredibly consequential, and we are confronted with the reality of these decisions every day. Do you feel an obligation to help a homeless person you pass? Are you concerned about the plight of refugees? Or the survival of the great apes?

These issues are frequently presented to us as direct tradeoffs. For example, if you support political policies that champion economic advancement you might be less concerned about the protection of ecosystems that would interfere with such policies.

Our research suggests that how we respond to these ethical challenges is in large part determined by the makeup of our moral circle.

What determines our moral circle

Whether you include someone or something within your moral circle is more complicated than you may think. When pressed, you may be able to identify whether an entity is worthy of moral consideration, but can you explain why?

Similarly, we tend to possess a larger moral circle if our moral instincts centre around the reduction of harm, rather than a priority for our in-group. People who identify with all humanity are likely to show greater concern for out-group members. While those who possess a sense of oneness with nature feel a strong moral obligation toward non-human animals and the environment.

Motivation

Beyond individual differences, your moment to moment motivations have the power to manipulate your moral circle. For example, if you love animals, but you also love eating meat, in the moment you are about to tuck into a steak you are likely to deny the moral standing of animals.

Similarly, we are more likely to cast an entity out of our moral circle if its needs conflict with our own, such as when weighing up our desire for economically valuable land with habitat protection. Likewise, if resources are scarce – say, during a recession – we are more likely to hold biased attitudes towards out-group members and view them as exploitable.

Perceptions of others

Our perceptions of others are also crucial to their inclusion within the moral circle. First and foremost is the possession of a mind. Can they feel pain, pleasure or fear? If we perceive the answer is yes then we are far more likely to grant them moral inclusion.

Equally, if groups are dehumanised and perceived to lack fundamental human traits, or objectified and denied personhood, we are far less likely to include them within our moral circle. Consider how stigmatised groups are often portrayed by political leaders, or on social media, and the power this might have in determining their moral inclusion.

Cognitive forces

Finally, our moral circles can be shaped by subtle cognitive forces beyond our conscious awareness. The simple cognitive switch of adopting an inclusion versus an exclusion mindset can have a substantial impact. Looking for evidence that something is worthy of moral inclusion produces a smaller moral circle than when looking for evidence that it is unworthy.

Similarly, how an entity is framed can be of tremendous consequence. Framing animals as subtly human-like has been shown to reduce speciesism and expand our moral circles.

An impending ethical challenge

History shows that humanity trends toward moral expansion. Time and again, generations consider the moral standing of entities beyond the scope of their ancestors.

In the coming years we will face yet another novel ethical challenge due to the inevitable rise of artificial intelligence. Should robots be granted moral inclusion?

The estimation of robots as worthy of moral consideration could depend on whether they meet many of the criteria outlined above. Do we perceive them to feel pain, pleasure or fear? Are they are framed as human-like or entirely artificial? Are we looking for evidence that they should be included in our moral circle, or evidence that they shouldn’t be? And do their needs conflict with our own?

While this issue is guaranteed to be divisive, one cannot deny that it presents a fascinating ethical challenge for our species.

Both chimpanzees and six-year-old children love seeing punishment doled out, even if it costs them, according to a paper published online this week in Nature Human Behaviour. These findings reveal new insights about the evolution of peer-punishment as a means to enforce social norms and ensure cooperation.

We know from previous research that humans and some animal species experience empathetic distress and concern when seeing others harmed. Adult humans however have also been shown to experience feelings of pleasure – when the harm is perceived as a deserved punishment for antisocial actions.

“In humans, empathic reactions can be radically undermined and change to feelings of pleasure when the suffering victim was previously antisocial or perceived as an outgroup member.”

Natacha Mendes, Nikolaus Steinbeis and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences devised an ingenious experiment to test when human children develop a motivation to see punishment happen. The team also set out to explore whether the same motivation exists in our closest living relatives, chimpanzees.

The children and chimpanzees were each introduced to a character who shared food or a toy with them (prosocial) and one who withheld these (antisocial). These characters then received physical punishment out of the view of the participants, who could choose to pay a cost to witness the punishment. For children, the “cost” was valuable stickers; for chimps, physical effort.

It was found that chimpanzees and six-year-olds were more motivated to see antisocial others punished than prosocial others. Four- or five-year-old children however were not similarly motivated. Moreover, it was found that six-year-old children showed a greater mixture of positive and negative emotions in response to watching the punishment of the antisocial agent than they did for the prosocial one.

The combination of these emotions, rejoicing in the misfortune of a disliked other, is also known as Schadenfreude.

This evidence supports the notion that the sixth year is an important time in human emotional and cognitive development, when children become willing to sacrifice resources in the interests of fairness. That chimpanzees share this personal motivation to see fair punishment enacted suggests deep evolutionary roots as a strategy to maintain fair cooperation.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2017/12/20/revenge-sweet-age-six/feed/0Offering sympathies for disabilitieshttps://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2017/11/12/offering-sympathies-disabilities/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2017/11/12/offering-sympathies-disabilities/#commentsSat, 11 Nov 2017 13:20:00 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=248165Short version: don’t. Be a wee bit careful about empathy, too. Why to not offer sympathies for disabilities is worth knowing. It’ll help you be kind to others in many situations, and to write or talk about disabilities and difficulties better. There’s a connection with science and science communication, too. A mantra about kindness that circulates in science communication and science circles, goes to the effect “Everyone here is smart, so distinguish yourself by being kind.” This is part of that, too, I guess.

In a recent article I used my hearing loss as an example of an effect of a vaccine-preventable illness, and to illustrate that affects from illnesses can be life-long. One commenter* opened their response by expressing their ‘sorrow’ at my hearing loss. For me this offering sympathy was merely a familiar irritation, but, really, don’t be that person. It can be deeply upsetting to others not as well placed to take it mildly. On another day I might not have myself.

I’ll use deafness as the disability in my examples, but the issues I introduce will apply to most disabilities and to many non-disability conditions. I’m using deafness simply because it’s something I understand well, and because I understand the social context.

I’m writing about those disabled most or all of their life, although it’ll apply in some ways to those that became disabled later in life, too. I just don’t have experience of that to relate to.

Why avoid sympathy?

Several reasons, but two main ones:

1. Sympathy vs empathy

While empathy can be fine—if offered with understanding—but most disabled people don’t want sympathy. The two are poles apart.

Sympathy is about expressing “feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune”.** Disabled people don’t want to be pitied. Why would they? It has the effect of belittling them.

Empathy, on the other hand, is “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another”.** It’s a very different thing. That’s more about the problems the person faces, and your being able to relate to them.

It can be tricky, though. Unless you know the disability well enough, you’re fairly unlikely to be able to relate to it properly. This is true even for common disabilities like loss of hearing or sight,*** things that people might expect to be able to easily relate to.

It leads to that frustrating thing where you want to express something about the difficulties someone faces, but can’t.

A possible solution is to say or write something neutral that allows them space to fill you in if they would like to. More directly you could ask questions, but be thoughtful about them.

There’s a lot written about sympathy vs. empathy. Some point out sympathy acts to seperate rather than engage. Others point to that sympathy focuses on what you can’t (easily) do, rather than what you can do, or what it is that you do.

2. Who you define yourself as

Many disabled simply don’t see themselves as disabled, or, more to the point, don’t define themselves in terms of their disability. If you offer sympathy, you’re defining that person in terms they don’t, a sort of straw man that at worse they may resent, and at best they may simply not relate well to.

Think about it. Do you define yourself as “big nose person”? Or, very unkindly but trying to make a point, define a crippled person as “wonky-legged person”?

Yes, people recognise the features they have, but there’s a difference to defining yourself as that feature.

Most people just think of themselves, as, well, themselves. At least that’s my experience of life.

A word of caution about deaf vs Deaf

Some, but not all, deaf people will identify themselves as part of ‘the’ Deaf culture. (Note the difference in capitalisation: they matter. If you get them wrong with the Deaf, you might be in for a visually loud sign language protest!)

Being Deaf is a cultural thing, not a physical one. They’ll be really peeved if you say you’re sorry that they are Deaf! It’d be like saying, “I’m sorry you’re Jewish” or “I’m sorry you’re Hmong”. I think most people have an idea of how well that would go down.

(I’m left ruminating if that’s all that different to saying “I’m sorry you’re deaf”, but it’s depressing so I’m going to pretend I didn’t think that.)

Conclusions

Don’t offer sympathy, and if you offer empathy, it’s usually better to let the person lead you to specifics unless you know the condition (and them) well. Avoid the word ‘sorry’ and it’s synonyms (see also doubling-down below).

And don’t double-down!

I’ve seen similar sympathies offered to women online about various things, often resulting in a strongly-worded response. What you really don’t want to do if the person says they’re unhappy about your pitying is double-down, accidentally (thoughtlessly) or not.

I’ve seen a few do that, and the social media mess that follows can be truly impressive.

One key is to not restate the original sympathy; you’ll only be saying that’s what you meant. Saying “that’s what I meant, but sorry” doesn’t work. That’s a non-apology that re-affirms what you meant! Do that and, whatever your intent, you just doubled-down. (It’s also rather mangled logic anyway.)

Better to simply take back what you wrote. Don’t use the word ‘sorry’ or synonyms – if you’re not careful you’ll evoke sympathy again… Say you screwed up, or apologise for your mistake. (Tip: use ‘apologise’, not ‘sorry”!) Perhaps add that you didn’t mean to belittle or pity them, but be very careful how you phrase that or you may be in for a shitillion of abuse in reply.

Footnotes

Occasionally I write on general topics at a tangent to science proper, most often leaving them for weekends. We all need a break every now and then.

I got that line “Everyone here is smart, so distinguish yourself by being kind” from Kate Hannah. I’ve no idea if it starts with her. (I should, ask eh? Maybe once this piece is up.)

On defining who you are, there is a ‘danger’ in defining yourself in terms of the job you do – one of the (literally) hundreds of topics I ‘keep meaning to’ write about with respect to science and scientists…

* I’m not interested in renewing that conversation, nor making this about him – hence the lack of links or names. I’d rather encourage better practice, and more widely.

** Both taken from the New Oxford Dictionary as offered on Mac OS X. Mine is the American version unfortunately, as I’m reluctant to update the OS while I’m overseas.

*** For what it’s worth, I have a sight loss too. In some ways two sight losses. One from congenital rubella syndrome. The other likely from too much reading as a kid, compounded by age… Being completely blind in one eye has it’s usually minor problems. The other sight loss is one too many of us readers are familiar with! LOL.

Rescue teams at the Christchurch CTV building site – Credit: MailOnline

New Zealanders are becoming aware of the magnitude of the earthquake that hit Christchurch last Tuesday. I mean the human magnitude – not the geological one.

We had become so used to the aftershocks from the September 2010 earthquake that this one took a few hours to hit home. Now we have a nation-wide state of emergency and the death toll is rising. Its expected to be in the hundreds.

We are now seeing an Erebus effect: Every New Zealander will have a family member or friend who has died or been injured. In fact, because Christchurch was a centre for tourism and education of foreign students, the personal influence will be much wider than the country itself.

Human empathy

At SciBlogsNZ, Peter Griffin describes the losses suffered by the NZ News media in Christchurch (see Amid carnage media bears brunt of disaster). He also stresses that “the New Zealand media has actually responded impressively, with dignity and respect for the people of Christchurch.” I agree – their coverage has been very effective within New Zealand and in supplying the overseas media.

This rapid and effective response by the media helped mobilise public sympathy and the huge efforts by the rest of the country to help in the search and rescue effort and support for survivors.

I have also been really impressed by how quickly other countries have responded with help. We had Australian search and rescue teams operating in Christchurch the day after the earthquake. More specialist teams are arriving from around the world. Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, USA, UK and probably other countries. Medical and police teams are also arriving.

The media coverage is bringing home the seriousness of this earthquake to the rest of New Zealand and the rest of the world. And there has been an immediate response.

I think this illustrates something about our species. We are basically social and empathetic. We can sympathise with the plight of others and feel their pain. We do respond automatically.

And our ability to empathise goes well beyond our direct kin. In a sense technological developments have brought this about. Today news of such human emergencies spreads very quickly. People on the other side of the world can be aware of such problems within hours. And the ready availability of news, images and TV produces a reality which enhances our empathy.

In a sense members of these search and rescue and other specialist teams are fortunate. In such emergencies they have skills which can be immediately put to use. Consequently these teams often operate in countries other than their own.

The rest of us often feel frustrated that we can’t help more. However, there is always the need for financial help – and that is particularly appropriate in this particular emergency. Just be aware that there are a few scams out there – support the reliable charities.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2011/02/24/a-human-response-to-christchurch-quake/feed/2The Empathic Civilizationhttps://sciblogs.co.nz/molecular-matters/2011/01/08/the-empathic-civilization/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/molecular-matters/2011/01/08/the-empathic-civilization/#commentsSat, 08 Jan 2011 03:44:10 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/molecular-matters/?p=154One of the things I look forward to over the Christmas/New Years break is to find a good book to read during my academic “downtime”. This time around I selected the Empathic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin and what a good choice that was. Exceedingly well written and informative, this book is not a light read. Its insights and occasionally provocative ideas had me regularly pausing to think more deeply about both the author’s ideas and my own beliefs.

An RSA animated summary of some of the key concepts in The Empathic Civilization is also available, see below.

There is a lot more detail in the actual books 600+ pages than the video can cover. I will attempt to cover some of this below, however, my own description will barely scratch the surface of Rifkin’s work. I hope it will whet a few people’s appetites, as I would love to discuss the book in much more detail.

The Empathic Civilization is divided into three sections.

I. Homo Empathicus

In this section, Rifkin looks many of the theories describing what primarily drives human beings. From Thomas Hobbe’s contention that humans are naturally aggressive and self interested, John Locke’s belief that we are driven to optimize pleasure and mitigate pain, to Sigmund Freud’s focus on sexual gratification, Rifkin discusses and then pokes holes in these theories. Then, using a multitude of scientific studies including the discovery of mirror neurons, Rifkin concludes that we are an empathic social species whose primary drive is to form relationships.

II. Empathy and Civilization

In these chapters, rich with historical details, Rifkin discusses the development of empathy across time and space and observes how advances in technology have resulted in ‘empathic surges’ as the way we interact with each other has changed. Technological improvements in communication, transport and energy use, in particular, have had significant impacts. For example, a shift from oral to written language ‘encourage(s) the individualization of language … (and) foster(s) the creation of a growing selfhood.’ The recognition that one is a separate entity from the community is necessary to be self-analytical, and therefore empathic. Rifkin uses a multitude of examples to illustrate his points.

III. The Age of Empathy

In this section, Rifkin discusses the modern world, commenting that ‘while the backlash of globalization — the xenophobia, political populism, and terrorist activity — is widely reported, far less attention has been paid to the growing empathic extension, as hundreds of millions of human beings have become part of a global floating diaspora, and the world itself is becoming transformed into a universal public square.’ Rifkin not believes that, as a species, we are at our most empathic, but that it may be our only salvation. As we enter a ‘planetary entropic abyss’ where our reliance on fossil fuels and pollution of our environment make our planet less inhabitable for an increasing population, an appeal to our empathic nature may be the only way to change our growth driven economies and societies to those which are truly sustainable. Rifkin describes a four pillar approach to drive a Third Industrial Revolution to create a sustainable global environment. I will detail this approach elsewhere, as I do not want to oversimplify it.

Jeremy Rifkin’s book, ‘The Empathic Civilization’ is a fascinating, substantial and sometimes confronting read (its subtitle is ‘the race to global consciousness in a world in crisis’ after all!). It is a wonderful story of human history, as well as a warning of where the excesses of humanity will lead us, unless we pursue more visionary and sustainable approaches to our combined future.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/molecular-matters/2011/01/08/the-empathic-civilization/feed/2Ravens and Empathy: The Role of Bystanders After Conflicthttps://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2010/06/23/ravens-and-empathy-the-role-of-bystanders-after-conflict/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2010/06/23/ravens-and-empathy-the-role-of-bystanders-after-conflict/#commentsWed, 23 Jun 2010 04:27:06 +0000http://scepticon.wordpress.com/?p=1939]]>At the same time as we were learning that Vegetarians and Vegans might be more empathic than Omnivores we were also discovering the nature of empathy in Ravens. Published in PLoS One recently was a paper called “Do Ravens Show Consolation? Responses to Distressed Others” looking at the behaviour of Ravens and the implications for the emotional lives of these birds.

I’m always interested in these sorts of studies as they show that each facet of human capability is not unique and the variation seen between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is usually only a matter of degree. For some reason I find this immensely satisfying, an emotional connection with the rest of the life on this planet that I rarely encounter in the suburban environment that I inhabit.

So how do you determine empathy among Ravens?

Well, it’s tricky. Essentially you have to determine a particular behaviour that occurs under particular circumstances indicating that an element of recognition of stress in one bird triggers behaviour to reduce that stress in another bird. Follow that? I’m not sure I did. What I’m saying is that definitions matter, if you want to infer a mental state from behaviour you have to be very clear on what that behaviour is to protect against confounding factors.

In this case the behaviour investigated consisted of monitoring the interactions of the birds for ten minutes after conflicts (either chase-flight, hitting [high intensity] or forced retreats [low intensity]) and determining whether the interactions occurred more quickly than in the corresponding ten minute time frame on a following day. In this way normal interactions could be controlled for and allow interpretation of the post-conflict interactions.

One other ingredient was also required. In order to assign significance to an interaction the so-called “value” of the relationship between interacting birds has to be known. Explicitly assigning value to a relationship is a bit of unusual concept in day-to-day life but, for example, friends and family would be classed as more valuable relationships than colleagues and acquaintances. So basically the researchers were attempting to determine who the birds friends were.

What was found was that birds who were the recipients of high intensity conflict (eg hitting) were more likely to receive interactions with high value bystanders. In other words, when birds got into a serious fight their friends came over afterwards. The correlation with conflict intensity implies that the “friends” knew when the victim would be more distressed and would need to be calmed. This insight further implies some level of empathy.

Further research might investigate what (if anything) the “friends” get out of comforting the victim. Perhaps the “friend” also becomes distressed and such interactions work to lower the stress of both the victim and the “friend”.

If such experiments seem dry compared to our experiences of empathic emotion remember that teasing out the mental states of humans is just as difficult by looking at behaviour. Consoling behaviour in humans may not indicate genuine empathy but a savvy use of circumstance to increase political control. Examinations of behaviour alone might not reveal the difference. Still, it’s nice to know that birds have friends too.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2010/06/23/ravens-and-empathy-the-role-of-bystanders-after-conflict/feed/3Are Vegans and Vegetarians More Empathic Than Omnivores?https://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2010/06/18/are-vegans-and-vegetarians-more-empathic-than-omnivores/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2010/06/18/are-vegans-and-vegetarians-more-empathic-than-omnivores/#commentsThu, 17 Jun 2010 20:25:25 +0000http://scepticon.wordpress.com/?p=1937]]>Humans are naturally omnivorous, our digestive system is adapted to cope with both animal and vegetable matter. Obviously we can’t eat everything, we wouldn’t get as much sustenance out of a mouthful of grass as a cow does. Termites can deal with the high cellulose content of wood and derive energy from that source while we would starve on such a diet. On the whole however we can manage to survive on a wide range of foodstuffs1,2 and can be quite happy doing so.

So far, so good. What on Earth has this got to do with empathy? Well, a recent study published in PLoS One using fMRI looked at the brains of subjects while they viewed negative images of either humans or other animals3 here is the reasoning from the study authors.

“In this study, we postulated that the neural representation of conditions of abuse and suffering might be different among subjects who made different feeding choice due to ethical reasons, and thus result in the engagement of different components of the brain networks associated with empathy and social cognition.”

The thinking here is that individuals who choose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle based on ethical considerations4 have a higher degree of empathy towards the suffering of both humans and animals compared to individuals who continue with an omnivorous diet. It might be of use to first define what empathy means in the context of this work, and why paraphrase when the authors have put it in their own words so much more concisely5:

“Empathy toward another person, which can be defined as the ability to share the other person’s feeling in an embodied manner, has been related to recruitment of a network mostly including the somatosensory and insular cortices, limbic regions and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).”

The study did find increased activation of those brain areas that correlate with empathy in vegans and vegetarians. In fact it was also found that vegans and vegetarians had much higher activation of these areas while watching images of animal suffering than human suffering implying greater empathy for animals than humans. As noted in the study:

“Remarkably, vegetarians and vegans have an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes regarding animals rather than humans, with the additional recruitment of the mPFC, PCC, and some visual areas. ACC has been associated with alert states, self awareness and pain processing, whereas mPFC and PCC activations are frequently observed in conditions involving representation of the self and self values …the selective response of vegans to animals in the ACC (with reduced amygdala responses) might reflect a greater attribution of self-relevance and a greater recruitment of emotional regulation mechanisms, when viewing negative states of non-human beings… By contrast, omnivores, showed greater responses to human negative valence scenes in the ACC (together with reduced amygdala activation), suggesting that self-relevance and emotion control mechanisms were more specifically engaged by viewing suffering conspecifics than suffering animal beings.”

This suggests to me that vegans are actually incorporating their greater empathy toward non-human animals into their personal identity (self-relevance). Possibly elevating it to a defining characteristic of their personality. This makes sense to me as in today’s world, while vegetarianism is becoming more common, the social pressure against a vegan lifestyle in most places would still be considerable. To retain such a choice in the face of this pressure would require a great deal of commitment.

This is pure speculation on my part but in the context of omnivores showing greater self-relevance activation when viewing negative scenes involving humans it appears to be a reasonable conjecture. This being a correlational study however there is no way to determine the causation of such responses. Do naturally highly empathic individuals simply gravitate to vegetarian or vegan lifestyles or does choosing the diet cause greater empathy, possibly as a means of rationalising a choice which may have originally been made for other reasons6.

Either way, this study implies that we omnivores are cold hearted in comparison to our meatless compatriots. How this might impact other decisions in our lives I’m not sure, perhaps an interesting follow-up would be if vegetarians and vegans give more time/money to charities or perceived worthy causes outside of the animal welfare realm. Actually this reminds me of a woman I occasionally see holding up a sign outside of the supermarket. Upon the sign is written “Compassion begins with dinner”7. Perhaps she’s onto something.